Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stilwater

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Saints Row, leaving open the option to merge sourced content from the history to that or another article, insofar as such a merge is supported by consensus. We have consensus here that this does not deserve an article of its own, but several people have expressed the opinion that a partial merger might be worthwhile.  Sandstein  18:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stilwater[edit]

Stilwater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Primarily non-notable fictional location (a single ref is a developer's blog, this information is more likely useful in a development section for either "Saints Row"/"Saints Row 2". Explicity layout of the city is unnecessary, and falls in WP:GAMEGUIDE. High-level details of city can be integrated into main game articles as needed. MASEM 12:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge to Saints Row or Saints Row 2. Way too much detail about a fictional city in a computer game. JIP | Talk 12:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my personal opinion, that's not a viable reason. Look at Liberty City from GTA.Attitude2000 (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That article, as with Vice City and San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto), need the same treatment that has to be considered here; in that case, the fictional cities can be described in a summary "Locations in the GTA series" article and covering high level details. Since for SRow, there's only one city, it can be discussed in the context of the games. --MASEM 18:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is best to keep. As both Saint Row and Saint Row 2 takes place at the same location. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to Saints Row — Lack of verifiable, third-party sources and fails the general notability guideline. The main problem lies in that there are lacks any extensive outside coverage — something that the blog, verifiable or not, does not address. MuZemike (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to coverage in multiple verifiable third-party sources which demonstrates notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those sources talk about Stilwater - they refer to the name of the city as to establish the setting. I've played the first and recognize that there is little that can actually be said about the city that doesn't become a fiction tourist guide or gameguide. --MASEM 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • They verify it in enough of a manner that suggests we can and should cover it somehow or other, i.e. I don't see any pressing need to redlink the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It can be covered in Saints Row, the idea shouldn't be buried and that article can have a Setting section using an {{anchor}} tag, with a redirect from Stilwater to there, in order to retain high-level information about the city. But the news.google.com articles don't support any significant details on the reasoning or creative aspect of the city to warrant much more discussion; that's only supported by the one developer blog that's already sourced, and that doesn't given significance. What's in that blog can be used to build up a development section in either game's article, but alone is not sufficient for an article. --MASEM 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why then not boldly redirect instead of having an AFD? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Bolding redirecting articles is something that the community frowns upon (see TTN). And I was only thinking deletion until other points were brought up (in which case a merge makes more sense, but too late in the process to go there now). --MASEM 18:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's never too late to merge. We aren't bound by any one five day Afd. And I don't think the community is really against redirects per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The community does not frown on boldy redirecting articles—in fact, we encourage it here. What the community does frown on is boldy redirecting articles en masse without discussion, edit-warring to enforce those redirects, and in general not "work[ing] collaboratively and constructively with the broader community". Simply "boldly redirecting" should not be confused for the type of behavior for which TTN was admonished. AfD is an inherent source of conflict and should be avoided if there are other reasonable solutions. To prove that an AfD nomination is more disruptive than a bold redirect, one may merely conduct a thought experiment: Imagine that an editor had nominated articles for AfD at the same rate and volume at which TTN redirected articles, and repeatedly nominated them (again at the same rate and volume as TTN's reversions-to-redirect) when not getting the desired results: this would have likely resulted in a perma-ban rather than just editing restrictions. There is clearly a difference between being bold and being tendentious. DHowell (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Saints Row: Without substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources, this article can't meet the general notability guideline, let alone its burden of proof in our verifiability policy. The only coverage in reliable third-party sources is trivial, mentioning the name of the location, but not offering any meaningful facts that we can verify. Randomran (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is not notable. No reliable third-party source explicitly discusses the subject in detail, thereby showing that there is no significant or substantial coverage per WP:GNG and WP:NOBJ. Article's nature is more of a virtual travel guide than one discussing conceptualization and development of the virtual setting, hence a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:VG/GL. Jappalang (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. The article is suitable covered in reliable third-party sources and therefore meets the general notability guideline and is consistent with What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not a fair characterization of Jappalang's comment. He explained that there were no reliable third party sources, which evidently there aren't. The WP:BURDEN is on people wanting to keep to prove those sources exist. Because right now, the article has nothing of the sort. All you've done is WP:JUSTAPOLICY. If the multiple third-party sources on Stilwater exist, then WP:PROVEIT. Randomran (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Already have as indicated earlier in the discussion. The burden is on those wanting to delete. We're in the business of cataloging human knowledge and we only redlink articles when we are persuaded compellingly that no sources can ever exist, but as mentioned above, the coverage is substantial enough for an article on Wikipedia in some manner, whether it's as keep, or merge, or redirect without deletion, but I have seen nothing to suggest the article and edit history must be redlinked. In any event, GameSpot asked "Is it worth paying a visit to the crime-infested city of Stilwater? Indeed it is, and you can see why in our video review." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          The video review is titled "GameSpot Video: Saints Row Video Review", not "GameSpot Video: Stilwater Video Review". Neither does it give significant coverage of subject concerned. Please at least understand the concept of significant or substantial coverage, properly read others' opinions, and go through the links you frequently bring up. Fillibustering discussions with these inane actions, trying to prove by assertion is tendentious editing. Jappalang (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          That is incorrect. See WP:BURDEN. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. ... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed." Randomran (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. The burden lies on those trying to delete, which is why we default to keep when we have no consensus. As reliable, third party sources have been presented this article should be kept. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are making a gross misinterpretation. The no-consensus-keep does not change the WP:BURDEN of WP:VERIFIABILITY, which is that the onus is on someone to show that the sources exist. You say there are reliable third party sources, but the article contains ZERO. "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Randomran (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not really worried there since reliable, third party sources have already been presented, regardless of whether they have been incorporated into the article. We're here to write an encyclopedia first and barring there's some overwhelming reason an article can never be improved and we desperately need to halt all work on it immediately, then it shouldn't be redlinked. That burden therefore rests on those trying to delete to convince us that there's some urgent need to stop all work and hide the edit history immediately. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Where have these reliable third party sources been presented? That's the issue. Right now, none of have been found, and so the article completely fails the WP:V policy. Randomran (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Above and in the article. I could hold up a banana to someone and no matter how many times they say they don't see a banana, it doesn't change the fact that I have presented one. I am not going to keep repeating myself by reshowing sources already shown. In any event, the article completely passes the WP:V policy. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is the name Stillwater or Stilwater?. Because most sites report has Stillwater not Stilwater [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] --SkyWalker (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            The name is irrelevant. The whole point is the sites brought up (of which two are unreliable per Wikipedia standards, and one is a duplicate of another) are all talking about the game and what the player can do in the game. They are not talking about how and why the virtual model of the Stil(l)water is designed the way it is, nor do they talk about people raving about the city, its design, and the buildings, but rather on the gameplay. To repeat, there is no significant or substantial coverage of the subject in those sites. Jappalang (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cull, merge and redirect - the subject's notability is painfully questionable and its article is far too over-detailed for an encyclopedia article on such a subject. However, it may be more prudent to cut the article down to size, cleaning out all that excessive detail and other fancruft so we're left with something actually useful for readers who haven't played the game before merging into the series article. The location should be covered in some small and concise amount in either the series article in setting sections of the two games it appears in. Such information is useful to the comprehensiveness of the other articles as it provides context to readers for the game's setting. It just shouldn't have a separate article; redistributing the information and redirecting to the series article seems like the best way to me.-- Sabre (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that LGRdC has added some references with comments about the city (see this diff for example). While these barely make this notable, we still have the issue that the content of this article falls somewhere between a fictional travel guide and a game guide, both which are details that WP does not cover. These points can be added to either game article with a more succinct version of the city, but a full article is still not justified with these references. --MASEM 23:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That strikes me though as cause for merging and redirecting without deletion. For what it's worth, I'm not really persuaded with the vocal minority argument that we shouldn't be a game guide. Given all the editors who create and work on those kinds of articles and all the hits they get, as long as they are verifiable, I don't really see why not to cover them or that the claim that we shouldn't are really consistent with what the community wants in practice. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why I'm still saying that its appropriate to merge (however, its up to an admin to close this in some fashion, I can't since I'm involved). We've been through the issue of being a game guide numerous times already through WT:VG and other AFDs, and consensus keeps showing that we do not include content that is only useful to someone playing the game, even if it is verifible, as it falls under the general principles of WP:NOT. --MASEM 23:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not persuaded of that because in those discussions the same editors which are far less numerous than those who create and work on the articles or who read them make that case. And who knows, maybe sooner or later they too will change their mind or be outvoiced. I see no reason not to keep ideas out there for others to pick up on. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • But it's not just video game editors, it's a long standing policy that WP does not tell people this level of detail. An encyclopedia is not the same as a textbook or guidebook for any topic regardless of how else the content meets WP's policies - game guides fall into these. This information can be located in a general game wiki, but not on Wikipedia. --MASEM 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • We're more than a regular encyclopedia though and have the disc space and interest to cover this kind of material in a manner that published encyclopedias reasonably could not. It may be somehow consistent with the ever disputed and evolving policies, but it's also a long-standing practice of editors to create and work on such articles and so long as what they write is true, then I say let them as doing so in spinoff and sub-articles only makes us that much more relevant, useful, valuable, etc. of a comprehensive reference guide. An alternate solution could be more vigorously linking ro soft rediecting to other wikis. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I completely agree on the later (and thus expect the extra information here to be found in some Saints Row wiki - I don't know if one exists, but its worthwhile there). However, be aware that the goals of an encyclopedia and the goals of a reference guide are two very different things, and we've long determined that we're the encyclopedia route. --MASEM 00:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I find that tables or lists of information on video games are to those articles what the table of elements is to an article on elements or a list of Academy Award winners is to an article of the Academy Awards. I am not suggesting that these fictional lists are necessarily as notable as the real world examples, but that they are sufficiently notable by their own measurement to be needed for fully understanding these subjects, too and anyone who is likely to click on them will benefit from comparing and contrasting that kind of information with other similar articles. If people use an encyclopedia for research and to evaluate information, there's something to be learned by examining one fictional location from another, i.e. it reveals something to the readers/researchers about how video games present locations differently and again so long as it is verifiable then there's something to be learned there too as not every video game is covered in strategy guides and nor does every game review specifically mention the locations. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge or redirect to Saints Row, depending on the subject's notability (which I do not wish to take the time to investigate right now). I see no good reason to delete when an appropriate and obvious redirect target exists. DHowell (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cull, merge and redirect per Sabre. No sign that this topic could support its own article (and no, a two-sentence Reception section and a link to Google doesn't cut it for me). Agree with nom that the majority of this current article is not suitable for wikipedia (WP:NOT), so that's where the culling comes in. – sgeureka t•c 06:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stilwater&oldid=1136107856"